Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Four words - How's that taste, Guam?
edited 20th Oct '15 1:16:41 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"So I saw an interesting article about how the California drought is as much political as meteorlogical
. Not sure I agree, but it does raise some interesting points. Emphasis mine as usual.
State officials say California’s drought is “one of the most severe droughts on record” and they warn that even an El Nino rainy season is unlikely to fix the situation. In fact, nothing seems to fix the situation. Californians have slashed their water use by 31 percent during July — well above the 25-percent reduction targeted by the governor. And there’s still not enough water.
But as this Watchdog series will show, California’s drought is largely a man-made crisis. It is caused by a series of policies — some from the past, many that are ongoing — which has prioritized environmental demands above the basic provision of water resources to the public. More than half of the state’s water resources simply flow out the San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean.
Even now, in the Sierra foothills state officials empty reservoirs to protect “unimpeded” river flows to benefit small numbers of non-endangered hatchery fish. The California Coastal Commission, the powerful agency with control of development along the shoreline, is holding up a privately planned desalination plant over concerns about its impact on plankton. The environmental-friendly commission want to force the developers to build a pumping system that destroys the economics of the plant.
Meanwhile, slow-growth activists see opportunity in the drought. Their goal is to stop new developments despite California’s growing population, so a lack of water is a useful tool in their arsenal. A state law forces developers to prove sufficient water resources for decades into the future — before being able to get a permit to build developments. This slow-growth lobby sees no reason to come up with water-storage solutions.
<snip>
Gov. Jerry Brown’s latest plan is to build twin tunnels under the Delta to provide a more consistent water supply southward. The planned cost: $25 billion for the total project, with a separate portion geared toward environmental restoration. Northern Californians are still mostly against it, as they claim it’s a water grab by Los Angeles-based users. (To understand the emotions, watch “Chinatown,” the 1974 movie about the deceptive way Owens Valley water was diverted to the Southland to spur the growth of Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley).
Looking deeply into the plan, this much is clear: The newly renamed “California Water Fix” doesn’t even promise more water to southern cities. It simply promises a more consistent water supply. The twin tunnels are designed to change the flow of the rivers and protect the Delta Smelt. With the smelt protected, there will be fewer reasons to shut the pumps. In other words, this is a costly engineering solution to a political problem.
And therein lies California’s main water problem. No one here denies the importance of the environment or that some portion of the state’s scarce water resources needs to be used to protect wetlands and river habitats. But the balance of power has shifted from those who believe that people come first to those who seem to view the population as a scourge.
<snip>
Recent reports showed that farmers use 80 percent of California’s water resources. It’s true that farmers are an important interest group. And because of the state’s old and quirky system of water rights, we see infuriating misuses of resources — e.g., farmers growing water-intensive hay in one of the driest regions on Earth, the southern Imperial Valley.
But that 80 percent number was deceptive because it completely omitted environmental uses of water, which comprise more than 50 percent of the state’s flows. Farmers, businesses and residents fight over what remains. What we’re seeing — water releases to benefit a small number of common fish, removing dams along major rivers, delays of desalination plants, failure to build adequate water storage — is not an anomaly. It is the cumulative effect of water policies dominated by environmental interests.
It wasn’t always this way. In earlier days, California’s water policies had more in common (and with some admittedly ill environmental effect) with the ideas of capitalist defender Ayn Rand than John Muir, the famed naturalist whose environmental legacy dominates California discussions. California leaders were proud of taming the wilderness and building massive infrastructure projects — especially water projects — that allowed the state’s phenomenal growth.
As someone who lives in California's Central Valley it is certainly not only political, we have had horrid rains for the past like 3 years and low as all hell snow packs for run off.
The rains recently is the first decent since like Nov of last year.
Also animals need some water too.
edited 20th Oct '15 10:30:05 PM by Memers
All the talk of California reminds me of something I heard the other day: Environmental groups sue to stop Nestle from pumping out water in drought zones with license that expired in 1988
.
Nestlé has had rights to bottle water from the forest's Strawberry Creek for decades, but a Desert Sun investigation in March of this year found that the company's permit to use a four-mile pipeline that transports the water to the bottling plant expired in 1988. A month later, the agency announced it was investigating the permit.
The plaintiffs—the Center for Biological Diversity, the Story of Stuff Project, and the Courage Campaign Institute—are calling on the Forest Service to shut down use of the pipeline and conduct an environmental review immediately. They contend that the Forest Service is breaking its own policies by allowing the bottling operation to continue, as the siphoning of water from the already depleted water source is harming local habitats and wildlife.
"Recent reports have indicated that water levels at Strawberry Creek are at record lows," said the plaintiffs in a statement yesterday. "In exchange for allowing Nestlé to continue siphoning water from the Creek, the Forest Service receives just $524 a year, less than the average Californian's water bill."
After a Mother Jones investigation found that Starbucks bottled Ethos brand water in Merced, California, the company announced it would move its operations out of state due to concerns about the drought. When asked if Nestlé would stop bottling California water, CEO Tim Brown replied, "Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would."
Also, at least according to this article, most of the water used for bottled water gets taken from drought areas.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |By some measures, that bottling contributes measurably to the drought. Bottling companies need to be curtailed.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"According to CNN, Joe Biden is "about to announce something". On the edge of our seats, we all are.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"So many people seem to want him to run that declaring that he isn't seems necessary to advance the primary process.
Edit: Added story link.
He's officially out. That means his political career should end in 2017. It's been a long and occasionally dignified one. Hats off to Joe: one classy guy, except when he isn't.
edited 21st Oct '15 9:39:28 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"anyone gonna give me 5 internet bucks?
I could see Biden becoming an elder statesmen of sorts, he's got pretty good international connections hasn't he? A diplomat at large might be something for him, that or maybe something internationally, a role at the UN or similar.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranOh, sure, he'll be a statesman, but this was his last chance to run for higher office, and there's no way he'd go back to being a Senator or something.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Media is desperate for a good horse race, especially if it is between candidates who won't want to radically change or challenge the companies who run the media.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Former NFL punter and outspoken activist Chris Kluwe
wrote an open (profane) letter to Houston Texans owner Bob Mc Nair for donating to a discriminatory cause.
This is one of those things where I agree with what he's saying, but at the same time, why would you write like that in a supposedly persuasive essay?
Feels more like an editorial thing? I mean, it's a letter. It's not necessarily intended to be persuasive. To be a persuasive letter would require the writer to believe that the intended recipient could be persuaded. Or that more conciliatory language would be successful.
This feels more like the guy's just saying what he thinks and he doesn't care if the guy is persuaded. More that he wants to get across that he's disgusted with him.

Yay for France! Unless you consider Asterix to be patriotic, of course. It's up to the point that some nationalists have adopted as a symbol a very much parodic version of a patriotic hero (Superdupont), Misaimed Fandom-like.